An exchange in the comments in yesterday’s post about my correspondence with a British journalist is worth reproducing here, since not many people are still reading that thread. What we discussed bears on a larger issue, one that I consider crucial in the ongoing war of memes between “extremists” like us and the PC/MC consensus. To engage the issue, we must jump up to a higher meta-level of ideological discourse.
My good friend Paul Weston offered this advice:
Baron, I think perhaps you should have answered his following question: “Is it possible, I wonder, whether your politics might have robbed you somewhat of your humanity?”
You could have said that the more you learn about the inhumanity displayed by Islam toward women, homosexuals, democracy and all non-Muslims, has only made you more aware of your own humanism and reinforced your desire to oppose Islam on the very basis of humanity.
It is a good point of defence to turn the liberal/left’s alliance with inhumane Islam against them, particularly when we are advocating what they would term “minority rights” which they purport to care deeply about.
There’s nothing wrong with what he says, assuming that it would be a good idea to answer the question at all. But that’s where we differ. Here’s what I replied:
You are correct — that is, the answer you suggest would be correct — but answering the question is not a prudent tactic.
Every time we answer an are-you-still-beating-your-wife-question, our arm gets stuck in the PC/MC Left’s own tar baby and we cannot help but be sucked further and further in. These are arguments and discussions where our opponents control all the premises. They are designed to trap us and immobilize us in impossible rhetorical positions so that we waste our energy constantly defending ourselves.
Every time I hear Tommy or Geert say “I’m not a racist”, I wince. Oh, I quite understand why they feel the need to defend themselves in such a manner, but by doing so they are being dragged onto a playing field where they cannot possibly win the game — the rules are rigged so as to make them lose.
No one believes the man who answers in the negative when asked if he is still beating his wife. In a similar way, no one outside the Counterjihad believes a Counterjihad person when he says he is not a racist. They already know he is a racist. They don’t need no stinkin’ evidence or logic. They just KNOW.
Therefore, the way to avoid losing is to decline to play the game. To refuse to accept any of the premises behind the ideological structure our opponents have so painstakingly constructed.
“Lost my humanity” indeed! That I should have to waste my time dealing with such inanities is a sign of the degraded condition into which modern intellectual discourse has descended. My interlocutor in this case is a young man, as you may have guessed. His capacity to ratiocinate, rudimentary at best, is evidence of the devastation that has been wrought upon British secondary education over the past two generations.
Any ability I possess to reason effectively and write lucidly I owe to the quality of the grammar school I attended in England more than forty years ago. I didn’t realize it at the time, but those years represented the final glory of a magnificent educational structure that now lies in ruins across the entire nook-shotten isle of Albion.
As Riddley Walker said (in the eponymous novel by Russell Hoban), upon seeing the “shyning of them broakin machines” at Fork Stoan: “O, what we ben! And what we come to!”